posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:49 PM
The article is dripping with “pull your heart strings” catch phrases. Granted, that is what you are going to get from the militant animal rights
So I am going to ignore all that crap, and get down to the blunt truth of it.
My take on it, from real world experience.
If you are going to do the job of culling a group of dogs, then you should know how to do it properly. He evidently hasn’t had that unpopular task
before, so he kind of messed things up a bit. He should have consulted an experienced person on how to do things. He evidently didn’t like the task
at hand. And his total lack of experience made the task into a nightmare.
Culling with a gun is perfectly legal here, as long as you use common sense. It’s commonly used for pigs, cows, many other animals, and even dogs
when the situation arises.
One of the big mistakes he made was not separating them before shooting them. Once the others see what happens to the first ones, then the whole group
gets into a frenzy. Once they get into a frenzy then it is impossible to control them, and to get them into a situation where you can make a humane
kill. That is totally unneeded stress on them. Taking them off one at a time, and the experience will be far easier on the animals you are having to
The other big mistake he made was his poor choice of shot placement, and the weapon he used. You shoot them from the back of the head, and they
don’t see it coming. And you make sure you have a weapon that can penetrate the skull. A hand gun is a strict no no. Minimum is a 22 rifle for
smaller stuff and something like a 223 for thicker skull animals. With those two requirements fulfilled, The dogs death should be painless. He won’t
feel a thing. It will be 100% humane.
That is the same method the state police use here to put down wounded deer. One shot to the brain box, and call the road crew to pick it up.
On him having to go into the grave to kill a dog that wasn’t dead before burying them. That was the right thing to do. There was a person around
here a while ago that got prosecuted for animal cruelty because he buried a dog alive that didn’t die from the shot. The judge told him specifically
that he wasn’t being prosecuted for shooting the dog. He was being prosecuted for not making sure the dog was dead before he buried her.
And then the animal rights people step in and make a bad situation worse. Instead of seeing the problem, and trying to counsel the companies on how to
humanly handle bad situations. And trying to point out to them what they did wrong so it won’t happen again, they come in with money and lawyers and
blow everything to heck.
If they screw up, and you point out to them what they did wrong, and they do it again, then send the lawyers in. But if it is the first time, then
give them a benefit of the doubt and try to help, instead of attack. It was apparent in this situation that the cruelty was not intentional. It was
strictly through incompetence.
The incompetence is strictly a result of the company putting him into a situation he was unprepared to deal with.